The prognostic importance of cathepsin D and E-cadherin in early breast cancer: A single-institution experience

ONCOLOGY LETTERS 2: 1183-1190, 2011

Abstract. Molecular tools have increasingly been used for decision-making in patients with early breast cancer (EBC). Nevertheless, simple tools such as immunohistochemistry may still be required in particular cases to complement traditional and molecular prognosticators. In this study, the prognostic significance of three well-known immunohistochemical biomarkers, cathepsin D, E-cadherin and Ki67, was studied in 270 patients with EBC, followed by a median time of 126 months in a single institution. Histological examination was performed to confirm the histopathological diagnosis and select specimens. The specimens were evaluated using immunohistochemistry and survival curves were plotted. Results revealed the following patient characteristics: node-negative/1-3 lymph nodes in 228 (86%) patients, hormone receptor-positive in 217 (80%); triple-negative in 31 (11%), and Her2-overexpression in 23 (9%) patients. Breast cancer-related events occurred in 37 patients (14%). A total of 217 patients (80%) survived. Receiver operating characteristic analysis for breast cancer-specific survival showed an area under curve for the clinicopathological model of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.64-0.86), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.68-0.90) for the three-biomarker model, and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.92) for the E-cadherin and cathepsin D only model. We propose that a simple prognostic model based on

combined scores of E-cadherin and cathepsin D may aid treat-ment decisions in patients with EBC.

Introduction

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer and a leading cause of cancer-related mortality in women in developed countries (1). Survival following diagnosis is dependent upon a range of biological factors, including tumor stage, lymph node involvement, pathological grade, hormone receptors and Her2 status. Nevertheless, breast cancer patients at the same stage of disease and sharing similar pathological diagnoses can experience markedly different clinical courses (2). Numerous beneficial prognostic indicators were constructed in patients with early breast cancer (EBC), including the Nottingham Prognostic Index (3), St. Gallen criteria (4), NIH consensus guidelines (5) and Adjuvant! Online (6). However, molecular classification of EBC with the use of minimal sets of genes expressed in the tumor appears to be a more powerful tool for prognostication or prediction of response than current prognostic indicators (7). The most widely clinically used test is the 21-gene recurrence score assay (Oncotype DX), which predicts risk of recurrence in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive EBC by measuring the expression of 21 genes in paraffin-embedded tumor material (8). In Israel, Oncotype DX has been funded by one or more of the four nationwide health care organizations since 2006. Despite the obvious advantages of the molecular classification of EBC, these studies usually require sending specimens to a central laboratory, are costly and may delay treatment decisions. The present study reports an analysis of the use of three well-recognized immunohis-tochemical biomarkers, cathepsin D, E-cadherin and Ki67, in patients with EBC.

Patients and methods

Study population. Following approval by the Institutional Review Board, we searched our registry and computerized database to identify patients who were diagnosed at the Soroka University Medical Center (SUMC), Israel, with a first primary breast cancer between January 1st, 1993 and December 31st, 2000. Patient medical records were retrospectively reviewed, and demographical, clinical and pathological data were

The prognostic importance of cathepsin D and E-cadherin in early breast cancer: A single-institution experience

GALIA JACOBSON-RABER1*, IRENA LAZAREV1*, VICTOR NOVACK2, WILLMOSH MERMERSHTEIN1, YAEL BAUMFELD2, DAVID B. GEFFEN1, NETTA SION-VARDY3 and SAMUEL ARIAD1

Departments of 1Oncology, 2Clinical Research Center, and 3Pathology, Soroka Medical Center and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva 84101, Israel

Received May 3, 2011; Accepted August 11, 2011

DOI: 10.3892/ol.2011.393

Correspondence to: Professor Samuel Ariad, Department of Oncology, Soroka Medical Center, Beer-Sheva 84101, P.O. Box 151, IsraelE-mail: [email protected]

*Contributed equally

Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; BCREs, breast cancer-related events; BCSS, breast cancer-specific survival; CI, confidence interval; ER, estrogen receptor; FISH, fluorescence in situ hybridization; HR, hazard ratio; IHC, immunohistochemistry; PgR, progesterone receptor; Q, quartile; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; RFS, relapse-free survival; SUMC, Soroka University Medical Center

Key words: early breast cancer, cathepsin D, E-cadherin, Ki67, immunohistochemistry, biomarkers, prognostic model, treatment decisions

JACOBSON-RABER et al: PROGNOSTIC IMPORTANCE OF CATHEPSIN D AND E-CADHERIN IN EARLY BREAST CANCER1184

recorded. Only patients with a pathological diagnosis of the infiltrating-ductal carcinoma type, for whom adequate pathological specimens and clinical data were available, were included in the study. Patients with a previous history of another primary tumor, or those who had previously received chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were excluded from the study. Patients diagnosed with pure ductal carcinoma in situ, lobular invasive or in situ tumors, as well as patients with bilaterality were excluded from the study. The study population included 270 patients who comprised 35% of the total breast cancer patients screened for the study. SUMC is a regional referral hospital providing chemo- and radiotherapy for the population of southern Israel. Baseline clinicopathological data included tumor size, local invasion and lymph node metastasis according to American Joint Committee on Cancer classifica-tion for breast cancer, 2002 version (9). In all cases in which adequate surgery was performed, pathological staging was a determining factor. Patients received chemotherapy, radio-therapy and hormonal treatments according to standards of that time-period. No patients with Her2-overexpressing disease received trastuzumab in the adjuvant setting.

Histological examination. H&E-stained slides were reviewed for confirmation of histopathological diagnosis and for selec-tion of adequate specimens for analysis. The histological identification of breast cancer was determined as recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). Grade was deter-mined according to the Allred score applying the modified Scarff-Bloom-Richardson scoring system (10) by a pathologist (N.S.V.) who was blinded to the clinical data. In each case, a representative paraffin block of the tumor was selected and sections were selected for immunohistochemical studies.

Immunohistochemistry (IHC). Immunohistochemical studies were performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections with the use of standard techniques. The following immunohistochemical studies were performed: ER and progesterone receptors (PgR), Her2, Ki67, cathepsin D and E-cadherin. Expression for cases with a Her2 HercepTest score of 3 were scored as positive, and those of 0 or 1 were scored as negative, as described in the HercepTest (Dako) protocol (11). Cases with Her2 scores of 2 were re-evaluated by fluores-cence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays. Table I shows data regarding the antibodies used in the present study.

Scoring of stained slides. The immunohistochemical localiza-tion of ER and PgR as well as that of E-cadherin, cathepsin D and Ki67, was scored by applying a semi-quantitative method, incorporating both the intensity and the distribution of specific staining as described by Detere et al (12). A minimum of 500 tumor cells were counted. If differences occurred between spot intensities, the most positive spot was considered. The evaluations were recorded as percentages of positively stained target cells in each of the four intensity categories, which were denoted as 0 (no staining), 1+ (weak but detectable above control), 2+ (distinct) or 3+ (strong). For each tissue, a value designating the H-Score was derived by adding the percent-ages of cells staining at each intensity (Pi) multiplied by the weighted intensity of staining, as in the formula: H-Score = ΣPi (i + 1), where i = 1, 2, 3 and Pi varies from 0 to 100%.

Statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated as frequencies to summarize clinicopathological characteristics. Outcome measures for this study were breast cancer-related events (BCREs), relapse-free and breast cancer-specific survival (RFS and BCSS). RFS was defined as the time from the date of pathological diagnosis to the first local, regional or distant recurrence or death from breast cancer prior to a recorded relapse. Locoregional recurrence was defined either as local recurrence in the original tumor bed with the same histological features of the primary tumor, or regional recurrence in the lymph nodes. Distant recurrence was defined as the presence of metastatic disease in all other locations.

For patients with multiple BCREs during follow-up, only the first episode was considered in the analysis. New ipsilateral breast cancer or other non-breast primary tumors were consid-ered as censoring events. In the absence of any of these events, observation time was censored at the latest follow-up visit. Only breast cancer-related death was considered in the analysis for BCSS. Patients surviving to the end of the follow-up period or those who succumbed during follow-up of any cause other than breast cancer were censored from the BCSS analysis. The χ2 and Mann-Whitney U tests were used as appropriate. Hazard ratios for RFS and BCSS were assessed using a Cox model that included characteristics such as age, menopausal status, tumor stage (T), nodal stage (N), ER and PgR status, Her2 status, grade and the scores of cathepsin D, E-cadherin and Ki67. Age was considered as a binary variable with a cut-off value defined at 50 years. The cut-off value for T was >20 vs. ≤20 mm. The cut-off value for N was >3 nodes involved vs. 0 or 1-3. The cut-off value for ER and PgR was defined as >10 vs. ≤10%. The cut-off value for grade was defined as high vs. intermediate or low. The cut-off value for the three biomarkers, cathepsin D, E-cadherin and Ki67, was dichotomized as the fourth quartile vs. the lower three quartiles.

Univariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were estimated by fitting a Cox regression model, and statisti-cally significant variables were included in the multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models using stepwise selec-tion. Survival curves were plotted as Kaplan-Meier survivor functions. Follow-up was truncated at 130 months for the purposes of plotting. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and corresponding area under the curve (AUC) statis-tics were used for the discriminatory accuracy of models. The following variables were included in the clinicopathological model: T, N, grade, percentage of ER- and PgR-positive cells, and Her2 status. Numerical H-Scores of each biomarker were analyzed as continuous variables and were included in the two- and three-biomarker models.

Statistical tests were two-sided and statistical significance was defined as P<0.05. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 17 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). This study was written in accordance with the Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies guidelines (13).

Results

Table II shows the frequencies of baseline characteristics, adjuvant treatments and immunohistochemical markers of all breast cancer patients, separated into two groups according to

ONCOLOGY LETTERS 2: 1183-1190, 2011 1185

Table I. Antibodies, suppliers, dilutions and techniques used for immunohistochemistry and the parameters evaluated.

Antibody Clone/Ab Source Dilution Technique Parameters evaluated

Anti-human NCH-38 DakoCytomation, 1:100 Ventana Benchmark, Percentage andE-cadherin Denmark Nexes intensitymouse, monoclonalAnti-human DC2000 DakoCytomation, 1:100 Ventana Benchmark, Percentage andCathepsin D Denmark Nexes intensitymouse, monoclonal Anti-human MIB-1 DakoCytomation, 1:300 Ventana Benchmark, Percentage andKi-67 mouse, Denmark Nexes intensitymonoclonalAnti-human NCL-ERp Novocastra, 1:100 Dako Autostained Percentage andER mouse, Newcastle upon Tyne, intensitymonoclonal UKAnti-human PgR636 Novocastra, 1:200 Dako Autostained Percentage andPgR mouse, Newcastle upon Tyne, intensitymonoclonal UKAnti-human TAB250 Zymed, 1:100 Dako Autostained Percentage andHer2/NEU South San Francisco, intensitymouse, monoclonal CA, USA

Table II. Frequencies of conventional prognostic factors, adjuvant treatments and immunohistochemical markers in the early breast cancer patients.a

Characteristic All patients (n=270) Event (n=39) No event (n=231) P-value ----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- No. % No. % No. %

Age (year) 0.990 Mean 57.3±12.1 57.3±13.8 57.3±11.9 Range 29-89 29-83 32-89 ≤40 16 6 >40 254 94

Menopause state 0.440 Pre- and peri-menopausal 69 26 12 31 57 25 Post-menopausal 181 67 27 69 172 75 Unknown 20 7

Tumor stage, TNM class <0.001 T1a 5 2 0 0 5 2 T1b 31 12 1 2 30 14 T1c 126 48 10 28 112 52 T2 91 35 23 62 68 30 T3 7 3 2 2 5 2 T4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 10 4

Positive nodes 0.050 0-3 228 86 28 76 200 88 0 163 60 1-3 65 24 >4 37 14 9 24 28 12 4-10 24 9 >10 13 5 Unknown 5 2


Table II. Continued.

Characteristic Patients (n=270) Event (n=39) No event (n=231) P-value ----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- No. % No. % No. %

Tumor grade 0.420 Low 43 16 4 12 39 20 Intermediate 110 41 11 48 95 49 High 71 26 13 39 58 30 Undetermined/unknown 46 17ER status 0.040 ER positive status, 199 74 29 64 170 78 >10% of tumor cells ER negative status, 63 23 15 42 48 21 <10% of tumor cells Unknown 8 3PgR status 0.040 PgR-positive status, 197 75 30 64 167 78 >10% of tumor cells PgR-negative status, 64 24 16 42 48 21 <10% of tumor cells Unknown 9 3Her2/neu status 0.080 Her2/neu overexpression 15 6 4 11 11 5 Her2/neu-negative status 245 94 33 88 212 95 Unknown 10 4ER, PgR, Her2/neu 31 11 7 18 24 10 0.180 (Triple) negative statusEvent type Metastasis 34 13 34 90 0 0 Locoregional relapse 1 0.4 1 3 0 0 Contralateral breast cancer 2 0.7 2 5 0 0Adjuvant tamoxifen Yes 212 78 No 54 20 Unknown 4 2Adjuvant chemotherapy Yes 146 54 No 121 45 Unknown 3 1Adjuvant radiotherapy Yes 192 71 No 72 27 Unknown 8 2Ki67 score Yes 264 98 No 6 2E-cadherin score Yes 261 97 No 9 3Cathepsin D score Yes 252 93 No 18 7

aThe sum of percentages may not be equal to 100 due to rounding. Baseline characteristics include demographics, clinical and pathological parameters according to the occurrence of breast cancer-related events.


the occurrence of BCREs. Fig. 1 shows the characteristics of the immunohistochemical stains for cathepsin D, E-cadherin and Ki67, including representative cases and histograms of each. In univariate analyses, the following parameters were associated with BCREs: i) tumor size (P<0.001), ii) ER-positive status (P=0.01), iii) PgR-positive status (P=0.01), iv) Her2-positive status (P=0.02) and v) lymph node involvement (P=0.05). No statistically significant correlation was found between tumor grade and BCRE. Table III shows the scores of immunohis-tochemical markers according to the occurrence of BCREs in all breast cancer patients. None of the three study biomarkers correlated with the occurrence of BCREs.

Analysis for RFS. Univariate Cox proportional hazard regres-sion analyses for RFS were performed according to following variables: age <50 years, pre-/peri-menopausal status, tumor size >20 mm, involvement of lymph nodes of >3, positive ER, positive PgR, Her2 overexpression, high-grade tumors, and cathepsin D, E-cadherin and Ki67 in quartiles (highest

quartile as the reference group). Among those models, the following parameters were statistically significant in the Cox regression analysis (Table IV): i) tumor size (HR=2.94; P=0.01, 95% CI, 1.41-6.10); ii) positive ER (HR=0.40; P=0.01, 95% CI, 0.21-0.78); iii) positive PgR (HR=0.42; P=0.01, 95% CI, 0.22-0.80); iv) Her2 overexpression (HR=3.11; P=0.01, 95% CI, 1.36-7.10). In the multivariate Cox propor-tional hazard regression analyses, the only variables that were statistically significant included tumor size (HR=2.63; P=0.01, 95% CI, 1.26-5.54) and PgR status (HR=0.41; P=0.01, 95% CI, 0.21-0.82). The Kaplan-Meier RFS curve for all breast cancer patients is shown in Fig. 2.

Analysis for BCSS. Univariate Cox proportional hazard regres-sion analyses for BCSS were similarly performed according to the same variables. Among those models, the following param-eters were statistically significant on the Cox regression analysis (Table IV): i) tumor size (HR=7.37; P=0.001, 95% CI, 2.18-24.93); ii) positive ER (HR=0.29; P=0.01, 95% CI, 0.13-0.68);

Figure 1. Immunohistochemical studies for cathepsin D, E-cadherin and Ki67 (IHC with diaminobenzidine; magnification, x400) in breast cancer (BC) patients. (A) BC case with a strongly-positive stain for cathepsin D (H-Score=300). (B) BC case with a mildly-positive stain for cathepsin D (H-Score=15). (C) A histogram of cathepsin D scores. (D) BC case with a strongly-positive stain for E-cadherin (H-Score=290). (E) BC case with a mildly-positive stain for E-cadherin (H-Score=20). (F) A histogram of E-cadherin scores. (G) BC case with a strongly-positive stain for Ki67 (H-Score=160). (H) BC case with a mildly-positive stain for Ki67 (H-Score=6). (I) A histogram of Ki67 scores.

A B C

D

G

E

H

F

I


iii) positive PgR (HR=0.36; P=0.01, 95% CI, 0.16-0.81); iv) Her2 +3 (HR=4.25; P=0.01, 95% CI, 1.67-10.8). Tumor grade showed a trend for statistical significance (HR=2.45; P=0.06, 95% CI, 0.97-6.2). In the multivariate Cox propor-tional hazard regression analyses, the only variables that were statistically significant included tumor size (HR=5.39; P=0.01, 95% CI, 1.56-18.64) and ER status (HR=0.33; P=0.02, 95% CI, 0.13-0.81). The Kaplan-Meier BCSS curve for all breast cancer patients is shown in Fig. 2.

ROC statistics. Results of the ROC analysis for RFS of the following models: i) combined clinicopathological data; ii) scores for E-cadherin, cathepsin D and Ki67; and iii) scores for E-cadherin and cathepsin D only are shown in Table V. Analysis for a combined clinicopathological model, including parameters such as tumor size, lymph node status, histological grade, ER and PgR scores and Her2 status, resulted in an AUC of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.39-0.64); a model using the scores of three immunohistochemical parameters resulted in an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.63-0.84), and a model using the scores of cathepsin D and E-cadherin only resulted in an AUC value of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.65-0.85). Results of the ROC analysis for BCSS related to similar models are shown in Table V. The AUC of a combined clinicopathological model was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.64-0.86). The AUC of the three biomarker models was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.68-0.90), and the AUC of a model of E-cadherin and cathepsin D was only 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.92).

Discussion

In this single-institutional study, we showed that a model incorporating two immunohistochemical biomarkers, E-cadherin and cathepsin D, in tumors of patients with EBC was comparable to a model based on standard clinico-pathological parameters in predicting BCSS. We used a simple scoring method that provided a quantitative measure for the

degree of staining intensity of each biomarker. The combina-tion of E-cadherin and cathepsin D proved valuable despite the fact that none of the individual biomarkers was capable of predicting prognosis. Overexpression of cathepsin D and low expression of E-cadherin may therefore be used to detect distinct sets of EBC in patients with a more aggressive form of the disease.

Each of the three biomarkers has been extensively studied in the past for its contribution to tumor aggressiveness. In

Table III. Scores of immunohistochemical markers according to the occurrence of breast cancer-related events in the early breast cancer patients.

Variable All patients (n=270) Event (n=39) No event (n=231) P-value

ER H-Score Mean 102±94 78±100 106±92 0.10 Median 90 15 90PgR H-Score Mean 86±84 64±80 90±85 0.09 Median 70 30 70Ki67 H-Score Mean 19±31 17±28 19±31 0.66 Median 5 2 5E-cadherin H-Score Mean 229±62 227±69 229±61 0.86 Median 250 250 250Cathepsin D H-Score Mean 168±77 172±84 168±76 0.75 Median 180 185 180

Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier relapse-free and disease-specific survival curves for the early breast cancer patients.


clinical practice, however, there remains some controversy regarding the manner in which biomarkers support treatment decisions. A critical impediment to their wider use is the lack of standardization for the interpretation of staining results. Overexpression of cathepsin D in breast tumors was associ-ated with increased metastatic potential and poor survival (14). Although it has been held that cathepsin D is involved in a non-specific protein degradation in a markedly acidic environment of lysosomes, an increasing number of studies have shown that cathepsin D interacts with other significant molecules and

affects cell signaling. Procathepsin D, the proform of lysosomal aspartic peptidase cathepsin D secreted from cancer cells, acts as a mitogen on cancer and stromal cells and stimulates their pro-invasive and pro-metastatic properties (15). In a model of neuroblastoma, extracellular exogenous cathepsin D induced Akt-1 phosphorylation and doxorubicin resistance in sensi-tive cells (16). Unlike infiltrating lobular carcinomas, which consistently exhibit a loss of E-cadherin expression regardless of clinical staging or outcome, over 80% of infiltrating ductal carcinomas continue to express E-cadherin, albeit at a progres-

Table IV. Clinical, pathological and immunohistochemical parameters.

Variable Relapse-free survival Overall survival --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hazard ratio 95% CI P-value Hazard ratio 95% CI P-value

Age ≤50 vs. >50 years 1.09 0.57-2.08 0.79 1.09 0.48-2.49 0.840Pre-/peri-menopause 1.27 0.64-2.50 0.50 1.18 0.49-2.85 0.710vs. post-menopauseTumor size >20 vs. <20 mm 2.94 1.41-6.10 0.01 7.37 2.18-24.93 0.001Positive lymph nodes 1.96 0.93-4.17 0.08 1.75 0.65-4.72 0.270>3 vs. 0-3Positive ER status 0.40 0.21-0.78 0.01 0.29 0.13-0.68 0.010vs. negativePositive PgR status 0.42 0.22-0.80 0.01 0.36 0.16-0.81 0.010vs. negativePositive Her2/neu status 3.11 1.36-7.10 0.01 4.25 1.67-10.80 0.010vs. negativeHigh- vs. low- 1.77 0.87-3.57 0.11 2.45 0.97-6.20 0.060and intermediate-gradeKi67 (quartiles) 0.91 0.60-1.19 0.47 0.86 0.61-1.22 0.400Q4 vs. Q1-3E-cadherin Q4 vs. Q1-3 1.06 0.79-1.43 0.70 0.79 0.54-1.43 0.220Cathepsin D Q4 vs. Q1-3 1.08 0.81-1.43 0.60 1.06 0.73-1.51 0.790

Univariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses for relapse-free and overall survival. Bold, statistically significant. Q, quartiles. CI, confidence interval.

Table V. ROC analysis and corresponding area under the curve (AUC) statistics for prediction models of breast cancer-related events and breast cancer-specific death in patients with early breast cancer.

Prediction model BC-related events BC-specific death ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 95% CI C-statistics (AUC) 95% CI C-statistics (AUC)

Clinicopathological (combined) 0.51 0.39-0.64 0.75 0.64-0.86Three markers (Ki67, 0.73 0.63-0.84 0.79 0.68-0.90cathepsin D and E-cadherin)Two markers (cathepsin D and 0.75 0.65-0.85 0.82 0.72-0.92E-cadherin)

BC, breast cancer; CI, confidence interval; AUC, area under the curve.


sively reduced level with an increasing stage or histological grade (17). E-cadherin is a transmembrane glycoprotein that mediates calcium-dependent intercellular adhesion and tissue architecture among epithelial cell layers (18,19). However, a reduced expression of E-cadherin may also underscore the ‘stem-cell behavior’ of breast cancer cells, since E-cadherin is regulated by Slug, Snail and Twist, which belong to the canonical Wnt/β-catenin signaling system (20,21). Notably, the addition of Ki67 to the model of cathepsin D and E-cadherin in our study did not improve prediction over and above the two-biomarker model. Multiple studies have previously shown that the immunohistochemical expression of nuclear Ki67 may be prognostic and predictive in patients with EBC (22), and the majority of gene expression-based predictors, including Oncotype DX, make use of proliferation phenotypes (23).

Our findings indicate that decision-making in patients with EBC is feasible. Our group has recently published its experi-ence with the use of Oncotype DX in patients with EBC and ER-positive, node-negative tumors (24). Recommendations for chemotherapy were changed after obtaining assay results in 25% of patients, where the majority of changes (71%) were from chemotherapy to no chemotherapy. Most importantly, Oncotype DX correlated poorly with Adjuvant! Online predic-tions. Nevertheless, we experienced uncertainty in regard to the correct treatment for patients with intermediate risk and recurrence scores. In such cases, treatment decisions are based on numerous parameters, including histological grade, clinical judgment and patients' willingness to receive chemotherapy. Although histological grade is almost universally accepted by clinicians, included in consensus guidelines and used in treatment decision-making (25), it is considered by certain investigators to have poor reproducibility, particularly for nuclear pleomorphism and mitotic count. Clinical judgment remains highly subjective, and patients' willingness to receive chemotherapy may not be based on solid data. Moreover, treat-ment decisions in many cases are required while molecular studies are unavailable. IHC has shown good reproducibility when performed by skilled specialists and in experienced high-volume laboratories. Beyond its simplicity and relative cost efficacy, IHC may prove prudent in the setting of limited tissue availability through the use of needle or core biopsies (26). The present study included a heterogeneous population of patients with EBC who received various treatments, and none of the patients received certain treatment options that now are considered standard, such as trastuzumab or taxanes. Another limitation of the present study is the lack of validation of the proposed prognostic model.

In conclusion, our results show that a prognostic model based on the scores of cathepsin D and E-cadherin staining intensity on paraffin sections of breast tumors may be beneficial in treatment decisions for patients with EBC, and in particular cases complement traditional and molecular prognosticators.

References

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, et al: Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 60: 277-300, 2010.

2. Burstein HJ, Harris JR and Morrow M: Malignant tumors of the breast. In: Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. DeVita VT, Hellman S and Rosenberg SA (eds.): 8th edition. Lippincot Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp1606-1654, 2008.

3. Van Belle V, van Calster B, Brouckaert O, et al: Qualitative assessment of the progesterone receptor and Her2 improves the Nottingham Prognostic Index up to 5 years after breast cancer diagnosis. J Clin Oncol 28: 4129-4134, 2010.

4. Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, et al: Panel members. Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol 20: 1319-1329, 2009.

5. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1-3, 2000. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr: 5-15, 2001.

6. Adjuvant! Online http://www.adjuvantonline.com/index.jsp 7. Wang Y, Klijn JG, Zhang Y, et al: Gene-expression profiles to

predict distant metastasis of lymph-node-negative primary breast cancer. Lancet 365: 671-679, 2005.

8. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al: A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351: 2817-2826, 2004.

9. Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P, et al: Revision of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 20: 3628-3636, 2002.

10. Elston CW and Ellis IO: Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19: 403-410, 1997.

11. Pauletti G, Dandekar S, Rong H, et al: Assessment of methods for tissue-based detection of the HER-2/neu alteration in human breast cancer: a direct comparison of fluorescence in situ hybrid-ization and immunohistochemistry. J Clin Oncol 18: 3651-3664, 2000.

12. Detere S, Saccani G, Jotti L, et al: A ‘quickscore’ method for immunohistochemical semiquantitation: validation for oestrogen receptor in breast carcinomas. J Clin Pathol 48: 876-879, 1995.

13. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, et al: Reporting recom-mendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2: 416-422, 2005.

14. Foekens JA, Look MP, Bolt-de Vries J, et al: Cathepsin-D in primary breast cancer: prognostic evaluation involving 2810 patients. Br J Cancer 79: 300-307, 1999.

15. Ohri SS, Vashishta A, Proctor M, et al: The propeptide of cathepsin D increases proliferation, invasion and metastasis of breast cancer cells. Int J Oncol 32: 491-498, 2008.

16. Sagulenko V, Muth D, Sagulenko E, et al: Cathepsin D protects human neuroblastoma cells from doxorubicin-induced cell death. Carcinogenesis 29: 1869-1877, 2008.

17. Prasad CP, Rath G, Mathur S, et al: Expression analysis of E-cadherin, Slug and GSK3beta in invasive ductal carcinoma of breast. BMC Cancer 9: 325, 2009.

18. Frixen UH, Behrens J, Sachs M, et al: E-cadherin-mediated cell-cell adhesion prevents invasiveness of human carcinoma cells. J Cell Biol 113: 173-185, 1991.

19. Goodwin M and Yap AS: Classical cadherin adhesion molecules: coordinating cell adhesion, signaling and the cytoskeleton. J Mol Histol 35: 839-844, 2004.

20. Nelson WJ and Nusse R: Convergence of Wnt, β-catenin, and cadherin pathways. Science 303: 1483-1487, 2004.

21. Roarty K and Rosen JM: Wnt and mammary stem cells: hormones cannot fly wingless. Curr Opin Pharmacol 10: 643-649, 2010.

22. Van Diest PJ, van der Wall E and Baak JP: Prognostic value of proliferation in invasive breast cancer: a review. J Clin Pathol 57: 675-681, 2004.

23. Albain KS, Paik S and van't Veer L: Prediction of adjuvant chemotherapy benefit in endocrine responsive, early breast cancer using multigene assays. Breast 18 (Suppl 3): 141-145, 2009.

24. Geffen DB, Abu-Ghanem S, Sion-Vardy N, et al: The impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on decision making about adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer in an oncology practice with a unified treatment policy. Ann Oncol: March, 2011 (E-pub ahead of print).

25. Soerjomataram I, Louwman MW, Ribot JG, et al: An overview of prognostic factors for long-term survivors of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 107: 309-330, 2008.

26. Payne SJ, Bowen RL, Jones JL, et al: Predictive markers in breast cancer – the present. Histopathology 52: 82-90, 2008.

Documents

The prognostic importance of cathepsin D and E-cadherin in early breast cancer: A single-institution experience